sustainability

Article
Main Problems of Railway Cross-Border Transport
Between Poland, Germany and Czech Republic
Wojciech Gamon 1, * and José Manuel Naranjo Gómez 2
1 Faculty of Applied Sciences, WSB University, 41-300 Dabrowa
˛ Górnicza, Poland
2 Polytechnic School, University of Extremadura, 10003 Cáceres, Spain
* Correspondence: wgamon@wsb.edu.pl




Received: 26 July 2019; Accepted: 4 September 2019; Published: 7 September 2019


Abstract: Railway cross-border transport is a special case of railway transport, which, due to the
necessity of crossing the state border, raises many difficulties. They result from factors, among which
the most important are other power systems, control systems, a variety of regulations regarding
traffic management or even problems with communication, resulting from the different languages.
These difficulties involve a number of consequences for the fluency and efficiency of transportation,
but more importantly, have negative effects on safety. The article describes the main problems of
cross-border transport on the example of Poland and two neighbouring countries (Germany and
Czech Republic), which are also members of the European Union. For this purpose, in cooperation
with the Polish railway undertakings, an analysis was carried out of processes conducted by these
in the field of cross-border transport and identifies the main problems in this area. As part of the
conducted research, potential solutions and improvements were also proposed. The article focuses
solely on the issues of crossing the border and manoeuvring operations at stations close to the German
and Czech borders, inasmuch as these processes constitute the largest area of activity of Polish railway
undertakings within the framework of rail cross-border transport.

Keywords: railway; cross-border; transport

1. Introduction
Some adopted transport policies pay particular attention to territorial cohesion by means of
different models of use and development [1] so as to get sustainable development. While the economic
profitability and environmental impact of transport infrastructure were traditionally taken into account,
territorial cohesion has now become an integral part of the deployment of new infrastructures or the
improvement of existing ones [2].
In this regard, transport networks act as catalysts in unifying spaces [3] and providing structure
to the territory, while reflecting the existing imbalance between urban systems and socioeconomic
activities [4]. For these reasons they become crucial to the structure of the modern world [5].
This aspect becomes more important when the transport networks join different countries, as a
unifying phenomenon within Cross-Border Cooperation (CBC).
Barriers arising in the area of Cross-Border Cooperation are a current and significant problem
limiting sustainable development, in particular in the area of Europe and European Union countries.
In the Euroregion analysed in this article, they are also discernible and desirable to solve [6]. General
problems in the CBC area are also adequate in the area of transport itself, including rail transport
(e.g., lack of mutual trust, insufficient knowledge of the partner’s language and communication
problems, differences in the legal and administrative conditions).
Continuous process of unification and integration of the railway markets of the European Union
countries, both in terms of legal requirements and the application of similar organizational and technical

Sustainability 2019, 11, 4900; doi:10.3390/su11184900 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 4900 2 of 10

solutions, makes railway cross-border transport a significant and constantly growing share in this
market [7–10]. Poland is an example of a country where this type of railway traffic (in the area of
passenger and freight transport) is systematically becoming an increasingly important area of activity
of railway undertakings and infrastructure managers [11–15]. The biggest area of activity of freight
railway undertakings in this regard is to conduct border transport processes. This type of transport
consists of carrying out the transport of goods in one country, crossing the border and performing
manoeuvring operations at the border station. This article describes this type of transport and the main
problems connected with it on the example of Poland and two neighbouring countries—the Federal
Republic of Germany and the Czech Republic.
Due to the large number of railway border crossings in the west and south of Poland, and due to
the increasing share of this type of transport in the total number of train services, problems related to
cross-border transport are becoming more important and more significant. Problems associated with
them can be divided into three main groups. The first one concerns technical aspects (various signaling
systems, various power systems, various vehicle types). The second one is related to the differences in
the documentation (e.g., instructions on traffic and signaling). The third group of problems is related
to the use of different languages by train drivers, traffic controllers and other people involved in the
transport process [16,17]. These problems can lead to very dangerous situations, which in extreme
cases may lead to serious accident, accident or incident.
Currently, in the area of cross-border cooperation between the countries of the European Union,
there are solutions, policies and activities to improve and develop it [18–20]. They concern promoting
institutional and stakeholders permanent cross-border cooperation in the area of transport in selected
parts of Europe (ACROSSEE [21]) or increasing accessibility of transport and reducing differences
in this area in individual European countries (SEETAC [21]). Even in the area of railway transport,
initiatives such as RETRACK (aimed at increasing the transport of goods between the countries of the
Community by rail instead of by road) are noticeable [10]. However, these kinds of initiatives usually
have a global scope. They can improve the operation of the entire system, but they do not usually solve
local problems related to specific border crossing points. Confirmation of this situation can be found
in the area of railway border crossings, where specific problems significantly impede the transport
process and can lead to undesirable situations.
Railway border crossings between Poland, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Czech Republic
was analyzed in the article in technical and organizational terms. Based on the experience of Polish
railway companies as well article describes the most important and most common problems occurring
during performing cross-border transport. Additionally, as part of the article, improvements that
could be implemented were discussed, which could reduce the current problems and limit their
possible effects.

2. Methodology
Currently, between Poland and the Federal Republic of Germany and the Czech Republic, rail traffic
is carried out on 19 sections used in border traffic (8 between Poland and Germany, 11 between Poland
and the Czech Republic). Individual sections are marked on the map shown in Figure 1.
The border sections differ from each other in terms of operational and technical aspects causing
even greater inconvenience due to the need for knowledge of the requirements and regulations for
specific sections, both by train drivers as well as people involved in the organization of transport in the
structures of the railway undertaking. These differences result primarily from other track layouts of
individual railway border crossings and railway traffic control devices installed on them, which makes
it necessary to have a precise knowledge of the individual circumstances of individual points.
Detailed information and comparison of individual border sections are presented in Table 1.
Table 1 was developed on the basis of documents called “Local Border Agreement”, which were
created by infrastructure managers (PKP PLK and DB Netze and PKP PLK and Správa železniční
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4900 3 of 10

dopravní cesty respectively) for each border section and which were made available to railway
undertakings operating on these sections.

Table 1. Comparison of railway border sections.

Radio Safety
Item Section Stations Electrification ATP/Signaling Devices
Communication System
Poland—Federal Republic of Germany
Szczecin Partially (3 kV Centralized mechanical
Szczecin Główny— Analogue SHP
1 Gumieńce DC) and relay
Löcknitz
Löcknitz No GSM-R Combined signalling PZB
Szczecin Partially (3 kV Centralized mechanical
Szczecin Główny— Analogue SHP
2 Gumieńce DC) and relay
Tantow
Tantow No GSM-R Combined signalling PZB
Kostrzyn— Kostrzyn No Analogue Centralized mechanical n/a
3
Küstrin-Kietz Küstrin-Kietz No Analogue Combined signalling PZB
Rzepin—Frankfurt Rzepin Yes (3 kV DC) Analogue Computer Ebilock 850 SHP
4
(Oder) Yes (3 kV DC, 15
Oderbrücke GSM-R Combined signalling PZB
kV AC)
Tuplice—Forst Tuplice No Analogue Centralized mechanical SHP
5
(Lausitz) Forst (Lausitz) No GSM-R Electronic PZB
Mechanical manual and
Gubin No Analogue SHP
6 Gubin—Guben centralized
GSM-R and
Guben Yes (15 kV AC) Light signalling system PZB
analogue
Zgorzelec No Analogue Light signalling system SHP
7 Zgorzelec—Görlitz
Görlitz No GSM-R Light signalling system PZB
W˛egliniec Yes (3 kV DC) Analogue Light signalling system SHP
8 W˛egliniec—Horka
Horka Yes (15 kV AC) GSM-R Light signalling system PZB
Poland—Czech Republic
Chałupki— Chałupki Yes (3 kV DC) Analogue Relay SHP
1
Bohumín Bohumín Yes (3 kV DC) GSM-R Electronic n/a
Zebrzydowice— Zebrzydowice Yes (3 kV DC) Analogue Mechanical SHP
2 Petrovice u Petrovice u
Karvineé Yes (3 kV DC) GSM-R Hybrid n/a
Karvineé
Mi˛edzylesie— Mi˛edzylesie Yes (3 kV DC) Analogue Computer SHP
3
Lichkov Lichkov Yes (3 kV DC) Analogue Electronic n/a
Mechanical manual and
Głuchołazy— Głuchołazy No Analogue SHP
4 centralized
Mikulovice
Mikulovice No Analogue Electromechanical n/a
Mieroszów— Mieroszów No Analogue Electromechanical SHP
5
Mezimesti Electromechanical
Mezimesti No Analogue n/a
manual and centralized
Cieszyn—Česky Cieszyn Yes (3 kV DC) Analogue Relay SHP
6
Tešin GSM-R and
Česky Tešin Yes (3 kV DC) Computer n/a
analogue
Electromechanical
Głuchołazy— Głuchołazy No Analogue SHP
7 manual and centralized
Jindrichov
Jindrichov No Analogue Electronic n/a
Zebrzydowice— Zebrzydowice Yes (3 kV DC) Analogue Mechanical SHP
8
Česky Tešin GSM-R and
Česky Tešin Yes (3 kV DC) Computer n/a
analogue
Szklarska
Szklarska Por˛eba Yes (3 kV DC) Analogue Relay SHP
9 Por˛eba Górna
Górna— Harrachov
Harrachov No Analogue Manual n/a
Electromechanical and
Kamienna Góra— Kamienna Góra No Analogue SHP
10 mechanical
Kralovec
Kralovec No Analogue Manual n/a
Zawidów No Analogue Manual SHP
11 Zawidów—Višňová
Višňová No Analogue Electronic n/a
Abbreviations: PZB—Punktförmige Zugbeeinflussung—cab signalling and train protection system;
SHP—Samoczynne Hamowanie Pociagu—safety
˛ device whose task is to ensure the safety of the train;
GSM-R—Global System for Mobile Communications–Railway—international wireless communications standard
for railways; n/a—no data available.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4900 4 of 10
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 10

.
Figure 1. Railway
Figure 1. Railway border
border crossings
crossings between
between Poland
Poland and
and the
the Federal
Federal Republic
Republic of
of Germany
Germany and
and the
the
Czech Republic (numbers in Figure correspond to numbers in Table 1).
Czech Republic (numbers in Figure correspond to numbers in Table 1).

There were also analysed data on railway freight cross-border transport between Poland, the
Table 1. Comparison of railway border sections.
Czech Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany, obtained from the President of the Office
of Ite
Rail Transport (pursuant to [22] railway market regulatorRadio
Electrificatio in Poland) inATP/Signaling Safety
the mode of providing
Section Stations Communicatio Syste
access
m to public information. The data consider n the year 2017 (latest availableDevices
data) and concern all
n m
border sections between the countries in question where the movement of at least one train took place.
Poland—Federal Republic of Germany
The data is presented divided into three groups, due to the way the border is crossed:
Centralized
Szczecin Partially
• Szczecin
The train started the route in Poland and finished Analogue mechanical and SHP
Gumieńce (3 kV DC) abroad.
1 Główny— relay
• The train started the route abroad and finished in Poland.
Löcknitz Combined
• Löcknitz
The train started and finished the route inNoPoland, during GSM-R
which the border was crossed. PZB
signalling
Centralized
The third of the described ways of crossing
Szczecin the border by a freight train is overall the most common
Partially
Szczecin Analogue mechanical and SHP
case of transport operations carried out, consisting
Gumieńce (3 kV DC) of a transport service under which goods are
2 Główny— relay
transported outside
Tantow of Poland, followed by manoeuvring operations at a border station. This method
Combined
is also quite specific because Tantow
in this case there isNono classic transport
GSM-R on the railway tracks of a foreign
signalling
PZB
infrastructure manager (border sections are a special case of rail infrastructure). This is due to the
Centralized
Kostrzyn No Analogue n/a
fact of existence two different railway systems at the same time (characterized
Kostrzyn— by different rules of
mechanical
3
driving traffic, communication with traffic dispatcher, technical aspects, etc.,
Küstrin-Kietz whereby the rules of
Combined
Küstrin-Kietz No Analogue PZB
either infrastructure manager are not fully applicable in these specific areas. signalling
The obtained data regarding this process Computer
Rzepin— Rzepin Yes (3are
kV presented
DC) in Table 2.
Analogue SHP
Ebilock 850freight trains,
4 To enable the data contained in Table 2 to be referenced to the total number of
Frankfurt
Yes (3 kV DC, Combined
data on the total
(Oder)number of freight trains dispatched in Poland
Oderbrücke GSM-Rin recent years was also obtained.
PZB
15 kV AC) signalling
These data relate only to trains that remained in service within the borders of Poland. In 2017, to which
Centralized
Table 2 applies, it was 381,260Tuplice
Tuplice—Forst
No
trains, in 2018—393,455, Analogue
in 2016—360,658 and in 2015—376,716. SHP
mechanical
5
(Lausitz) Forst
No GSM-R Electronic PZB
(Lausitz)
Mechanical
Gubin No Analogue manual and SHP
6 Gubin—Guben centralized
Yes GSM-R and Light signalling
Guben PZB
(15 kV AC) analogue system
Light signalling
Zgorzelec No Analogue SHP
Zgorzelec— system
7
Görlitz Light signalling
Görlitz No GSM-R PZB
system
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4900 5 of 10

Table 2. Number of freight trains crossing railway border crossings in 2017.

Number of Freight Trains Depending on the Way of Crossing the Border

Item Border Section Start in Poland Start Abroad Start and Finish in Poland
Finish Abroad Finish in Poland (with Crossing the Border)
1 Bohumin—Chałupki 5046 5599 9067
2 Forst Lausitz—W˛egliniec 1737 1790 294
3 Frankfurt—Kunowice 2772 2483 2665
4 Guben—Czerwieńsk 1778 1729 2171
5 Guben—Głogów 6 15 3
6 Kostrzyn—Kustrien-Kietz 685 720 171
7 Rzepin—Oderbruecke 4653 4938 3150
Zebrzydowice—Petrovice u
8 7701 7804 8616
Karvine
Total 24,378 25,078 26,137

3. Results

3.1. Analysis of Operating Parameters of Border Stations

After analysing the Local Border Agreements (data in Table 1), significant discrepancies in the
operational conditions of individual railway border sections can be noticed. This applies both to
crossings at two different borders and to border sections within one border. Discrepancies concern i.a.
the telecommunications system. At all border sections in Poland, analogue radio communication is
used, while in almost all German border stations and some Czech stations there is a modern GSM-R
communication system. This fact causes obvious difficulties in communication between the train
drivers and the train dispatchers because the vehicle crossing the border should be equipped with both
systems. A similar situation occurs in the case of the catenary systems, and more specifically the type of
power used in it. For Polish-German electrified railway border crossings, carriers crossing the border
must contend with two different power systems–Polish based on a direct current of 3 kV and German
using alternating current voltage of 15 kV. This fact makes it necessary to use multi-system locomotives
whose design allows the use of several kinds of power. Alternatively (which is often happening
at the Polish-German borderland), it is necessary to use diesel locomotives that are attached to the
train composition by a single-system locomotive that allow the train to move within border stations.
Analogously, there are two rail traffic protection systems that require the building of other types of
devices on both the railway infrastructure and vehicles side. In the case of Polish border stations, it is
the automatic train protection (SHP), while in the case of the German side, the PZB system. Both of
these systems operate on a very similar principle and carry out similar functions. They consist of an
on-board part mounted on the vehicle and a track-side part (resonant circuit tuned to the appropriate
frequency). When the vehicle is over the sensor in the driver’s cab, information about that fact is
displayed. The driver is obliged to react to the information (pressing the button) thus proving his
vigilance. If it does not do this for a certain, short period of time, the automatic braking of the train will
be activated, which the driver can no longer control. Resonant circuits are mounted in most important
places, for example before railway devices displaying signals about the possibility of driving or not.
The Polish system (SHP) uses only one frequency—1000 Hz, and its functionality is limited to one
point where the driver’s vigilance is checking. The German system (PZB) uses resonators with three
frequencies (500 Hz, 1000 Hz, 2000 Hz) that have different functions. The first two are used to warn the
driver about the need to reduce the speed, while passing the third type resonator (2000 Hz), without its
prior deactivation by displaying a signal allowing to drive, immediately activates emergency braking.
However, these systems are not compatible with each other and require separate infrastructure,
and thus locomotive equipment in both systems at the same time. What is important in the documents
of the Local Border Agreements regarding the Polish-Czech crossings, we do not find information
about the systems built on the Czech side and the resulting requirements for railway undertakings.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4900 6 of 10

3.2. Problems Resulting from the Local Border Agreements

The analysis of the documents of the Local Border Agreements poses many problems. These are
extensive documents (some of them consist of even over 200 pages—as in the case of the
Chałupki-Bohumin border crossing document), containing a lot of information that is often not
systematically arranged. In addition, documents in terms of editing differ from each other making
it even more difficult to read and assimilate the information contained in them. In particular, it is
visible after comparing Czech and German documents—there is a completely different arrangement
of contents (documents on Polish-Czech cross-border are created in both languages at once in a
column layout). Even within documents regarding the same border, there are differences in fonts,
layout of content, text formatting, etc. An important issue in this respect is the lack of a uniform
approach to the description of rail traffic control and signalling systems occurring at individual
border stations. This information is extremely important from the point of view of the recipients
of documents—employees of infrastructure managers and railway undertakings operating within
border stations. This fact causes significant difficulties in obtaining information on elementary issues
related to railway traffic on a given station. There are situations where the document does not
contain any information about the systems used at all (this is the case of crossing Zgorzelec–Görlitz,
W˛egliniec–Horka or Guben station). An additional difficulty in this area is the use of non-uniform
naming for systems and devices related to the operation and safety of rail traffic, which results,
for example, from the use of devices/systems from different manufacturers.
An undoubted obstacle for railway undertakings operating trains within border stations is also
the multitude and diversity of systems found in various infrastructure managers. This is not only
about the above-mentioned different power systems, radio communication or rail traffic safety, but also
about difficulties caused by the use of mechanical signalling in addition to light signalling (as in the
case of Głuchołazy and Kamienna Góra stations), other loading gauges (e.g., G-2 UIC–Oder and A
PN-69/K-02057–Rzepin), or the simultaneous use of analogue radio and GSM-R (Guben).
In addition, the provisions in the Local Border Agreements directly related to safety may
be worrying. For example, we find information: “Irregularities in the operation of rail border
traffic should be immediately assessed and adequately solved” (Local Border Agreement of
Szczecin Główny—Löcknitz border crossing) or “Problems encountered while conducting traffic
on a section operated in border traffic must be immediately analysed and eliminated by both parties”
(Local Border Agreement of W˛egliniec–Horka border crossing) or “The local border agreement should
be immediately supplemented with appropriate regulations if necessary” (Local Border Agreement
of Kostrzyn—Küstrin-Kietz border crossing). The very ambiguous form of these provisions means
that there are not really indicated units/persons responsible for performing the relevant activities,
which were also not indicated in the documents. It is not difficult to guess that in the vast majority
of cases when there is no railway accident in the strict sense, all kinds of dangers and potentially
accidental situations remain unrecognized. This is due to the fact that in accordance with the applicable
law all serious accidents, accidents and incidents (of which the detailed catalog is contained in the
relevant documents) must be reported to the National Safety Authority and National Investigation
Body. Other situations that did not lead to the above events must be recorded and analyzed by railway
undertakings, without the obligation to report them. Unfortunately, such a state may give rise to abuse
and intentional concealment of dangerous situations. A definitely better solution in this respect would
be to indicate detailed, systemic actions that should be taken by appropriate organizational units or
employees of the infrastructure manager and railway undertaking at the time of undesirable situations.

3.3. The Main Problems from Railway Undertakings Point of View

In order to identify the most important and most common problems faced by railway undertakings
during transport at border stations, three Polish rail companies were contacted. Selected undertakings
specialize in railway freight transport in Poland but they also operate trains which crossing borders
with Germany and Czech Republic. In all cases, conversations were held with company management
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4900 7 of 10

and a selected group of several train drivers to obtain information on the most common and significant
difficulties for cross-border transport. As a result of discussions and analyses, a number of irregularities
were found that significantly affect the correctness of the processes carried out during border traffic.
It should be borne in mind that errors and problems described in the further part of the article have
been identified as part of the collaboration with several railway undertakings and should not be treated
as a source of common and general incompatibilities occurring during the transport process. On the
other hand, they may indicate problematic areas important for infrastructure managers, which are
potential for improvement, in which the introduction of specific corrective and preventive actions
could have a significant impact on improving the safety and quality of services.
One of the significant problems reported by railway undertakings is the non-adaptation of the
provisions of the Local Border Agreements to the actual conditions prevailing during the operation of
border stations. The consequence of this is the non-compliance of carriers with certain provisions of
these documents. An example here can be the use of the GSM-R communication system. In accordance
with the provisions of the Local Border Agreement, a train driver operating a locomotive equipped
with this system should activate it at the moment of commuting to the indicator informing about the
need to switch the communication system. In fact, due to the necessity of a later stop of the vehicle
due to the change of the power supply system (3 kV DC–15 kV AC), usually the GSM-R system is
activated just at this moment. This is not the most advantageous solution, because it can be misleading
traffic dispatcher who may not be aware of the lack of contact with the train drivers by radiotelephone.
Among other things, for this reason, Polish train drivers crossing the German side contact the traffic
dispatcher using a mobile phone. Often they do not even know the principles of GSM-R system
operation, because they simply do not need it—it is not used by them, if their role ends only on bringing
the train for the station on the German side.
A completely different problem is moving in the border traffic of single-system vehicles (one type
of power system) and not equipped with the GSM-R system. This type of locomotive is not allowed on
foreign infrastructure based on this method of communication. In connection with the above, there is
often a situation in which the train must to drive another locomotive with a diesel engine. This causes
some inconvenience to the train drivers, because the locomotive is deprived of external power while
waiting. A locomotive without external power does not have the option of switching on the heating
system, which forces train drivers to wait in the cabin, where the temperature is far from comfortable.
Other main problem in the area of border transport is the question of communication resulting
from the use of other languages. This problem looks different in the case of the Polish-German and
Polish-Czech borders. In the first case, it often happens that train drivers do not know German at all,
but only a few key phrases enabling communication at a very elementary level. This type of solution
works well when the transport process runs smoothly (there are no unexpected events, unplanned
stops, rolling stock or infrastructure failures, etc.). Complications begin when difficulties arise. In the
case of the Polish-Czech border, there is a slightly different problem. Since both languages belong to
the group of Slavic languages, communication between employees of the railway undertakings and
infrastructure manager seems to be easier. In reality, however, the similarity of these two languages
results in the use of a specific mix of Polish and Czech, which is not really any of them. Experienced
train drivers and train dispatchers have much smaller problems with this, while the work of people
with less experience can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the provided information.
It should be noted that the use of this type of communication is inconsistent with the requirements of
the Local Border Agreements and it is natural that it can lead to dangerous situations regarding the
flow of information.

4. Discussion, Conclusions and Future Research Directions

The area of rail cross-border transport is a constantly growing, important market segment,
especially in the case of the European Union, almost completely uniform in terms of legislation, and the
requirements related to crossing the border are kept to a minimum. This is primarily due to the
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4900 8 of 10

implementation of the second (2004) and third (2007) railway packages, which were group of European
Union legislation which promote common standards and open access, working towards an integrated
European railway area. In particular, this was due to implementation of directive 2004/49/EC and
directive 2007/59/EC. Simplification and harmonization of border crossing regulations is, of course,
desirable and necessary in order to enable economic development and trade. However, it should
be realized that the lack of proper supervision and too liberal regulations may lead to undesirable
situations in which the level of safety may be alarmingly lowered. The analysis carried out under this
article allows to conclude that issues related to the crossing of the Polish-Czech and Polish-German
border by railway freight undertakings are subject to certain threats and cause problems, which in
consequence may lead to undesirable events. Often the signals and information coming directly
from railway market participants regarding problems in border traffic are disturbing. It would be
advisable to consider the possibility of introducing systemic, general and comprehensive, yet simple
and understandable solutions, compliance with which would guarantee safe transport. It is understood
that technical problems, such as different power supply or signalling systems, are not possible to solve
in a quick and cost-free way, nevertheless the analysis carried out indicates that a number of problems
are related to communication, which with a little good will of both parties, could be solved or it would
be possible to limit their possible effects.
The main conclusion resulting from the conducted analysis is that it is necessary to consider the
possibility of updating the Local Border Agreements in order to unify, simplify and delete unnecessary
records. According to the authors, it is possible to reduce the scope of these documents, leaving
only the most important and necessary information. It would also be appropriate to ensure a unified
form, regardless of the border which the document concern, which would guarantee exactly the same
distribution and scope of content. Undoubtedly, this solution would contribute to better understanding
the documents by railway employees, and thus to their correct application. For example, in case of use
technical devices/systems from different manufacturers it seems that the proper solution would be
to introduce a requirement to describe issues related to traffic control and signalling in the form of
a short table, identical for each border crossing, in which only specific phrases and names could be
used. This procedure could have a significant positive impact on the ability to quickly and accurately
obtain information on important issues of rail traffic operation. Secondly, it is necessary to consider
the possibility of increasing the enforcement of provisions contained in the Local Border Agreements.
Currently, knowledge of the content of these documents is practically not verified in any way and
very often railway employees rely on their experience, not on specific guidelines on the operating
rules of a specific railway border crossing. Furthermore, it is hard to be optimistic about the dead
letters in documents. An example here may be the information that railway undertakings operating
trains at border stations should develop instructions for their train drivers in moving along the border
sections. Although this provision from the point of view of rail safety is desirable, and the instructions
in question would certainly improve its level, it unfortunately is not reflected in reality, because the
vast majority of carriers do not develop such documents. Thirdly, it is advisable to organize meetings
with all interested parties in order to identify threats and problems related to the railway cross-border
transport and to counteract them. Such meetings of railway undertakings with infrastructure managers
would undoubtedly have a positive impact on information exchange and safety. Rail companies
contacted by the authors express a big interest to participate in such initiatives.
The most important direction of further research will be the analysis of subsequent railway border
crossings in Central and Eastern Europe, in view of the difficulties encountered while crossing the
borders. Particularly interesting in this respect may be the case of countries outside the European
Union, especially the countries that were part of the Soviet Union (for example, Belarus, Ukraine)
because apart from the problems mentioned in the article there is also the issue of different track
gauges (1435 mm–1520 mm) causing the necessity of applying technical or spatial planning solutions
to overcome this barrier.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4900 9 of 10

Author Contributions: All authors contributed equally in the development of the present paper. For the proper
paper developing, all the phases have been discussed and worked by the authors.
Funding: The project is funded under the program of the Minister of Science and Higher Education titled “Regional
Initiative of Excellence” in 2019–2022, project number 018/RID/2018/19, the amount of funding PLN 10 788 423,16”
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References and Notes

1. Frank, A.I.; Mironowicz, I.; Lourenço, J.; Franchini, T.; Ache, P.; Finka, M.; Scholl, B.; Grams, A. Educating
planners in europe: A review of 21st century study programmes. Prog. Plan. 2014, 91, 30–94. [CrossRef]
2. Naranjo, J.M. Impacts on the Social Cohesion of Mainland Spain’s Future Motorway and High-Speed Rail
Networks. Sustainabilty 2016, 8, 624. [CrossRef]
3. Vickerman, R.W. Transport infrastructure in the european community: New developments, regional
implications and evaluation. In Infrastructure and Regional Development; Pion Limited: London, UK, 1991.
4. Givoni, M. Development and impact of the modern high-speed train: A review. Transp. Rev. 2006, 26,
593–611. [CrossRef]
5. Miralles, C.; Cebollada, A. Movilidad cotidiana y sostenibilidad: Una interpretación desde la geografía
humana. Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles 2009, 50, 193–216. (In Spanish)
6. Kurowska-Pysz, J.; Castanho, R.A.; Naranjo Gómez, J.M. Cross-border cooperation—The barriers analysis
and the recommendations. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2018, 17, 134–147. [CrossRef]
7. European Union. Report from the Commission to The European Parliament and The Council, Sixth Report on
Monitoring Development of the Rail Market; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
8. Sippel, L.; Nolte, J.; Maarfiled, S.; Wolff, D.; Roux, L. Comprehensive Analysis of The Existing Cross-Border
Rail Transport Connections and Missing Links on the Internal Eu Borders; Final Report; European Commission:
Brussels, Belgium, 2018.
9. Braathen, N.A. Globalisation, Transport and the Environment; OECD: Paris, France, 2010.
10. Zunder, T.H.; Islam, D.M.Z.; Mortimer, P.N.; Aditjandra, P.T. How far has open access enabled the growth of
cross border pan European rail freight? A case study. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2013, 6, 71–80. [CrossRef]
11. Beim, M.; Soczówka, A. Rozwój kolejowych, regionalnych połacze ˛ ń transgranicznych w Polsce.
Transp. Miej. Reg. 2016, 2, 19–24. (In Polish)
12. Graff, M. Komunikacja kolejowa na pograniczu polsko-czeskim i polsko-słowackim. Tech. Transp. Szyn.
2017, 24, 16–26. (In Polish)
13. Graff, M. Komunikacja kolejowa na polsko-niemieckim pograniczu. Tech. Transp. Szyn. 2017, 24, 22–33. (In Polish)
14. Rusak, R. Kolejowe przejścia graniczne. Tech. Transp. Szyn. 2004, 9, 15–23. (In Polish)
15. Smolarski, M. Railway border crossing on polish-czech borderland. Level of utilization and public transport
offer. Przeglad
˛ Komun. 2018. (In Polish) [CrossRef]
16. Medeiros, E. Cross-border transports and cross-border mobility in EU border regions. Case Stud. Transp. Policy
2019, 7, 1–12. [CrossRef]
17. Knippschild, R. Cross-Border Spatial Planning: Understanding, Designing and Managing Cooperation
Processes in the German-Polish-Czech Borderland. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2011, 19, 629–645. [CrossRef]
18. Kurowska-Pysz, J.; Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K.; Stverkova, H.; Kašík, J. The catalysts of cross-border
cooperation development in euroregions. Polish J. Manag. Stud. 2018, 18, 180–193. [CrossRef]
19. Cavallaro, F.; Dianin, A. Cross-border commuting in Central Europe: Features, trends and policies.
Transp. Policy 2019, 78, 86–104. [CrossRef]
20. Castanho, R.A.; Vulevic, A.; Naranjo Gómez, J.M.; Cabezas, J.; Fernández-Pozo, L.; Loures, L.;
Kurowska-Pysz, J. Political commitment and transparency as a critical factor to achieve territorial cohesion
and sustainable growth. European cross-border projects and strategies. Reg. Sci. Policy Pract. 2019, 11,
423–435. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4900 10 of 10

21. Miltiadou, M.; Bouhouras, E.; Basbas, S.; Mintsis, G.; Taxiltaris, C. Analysis of border crossings in South East
Europe and measures for their improvement. Transp. Res. Procedia 2017, 25, 603–615. [CrossRef]
22. Polish Railway Transport Act. (consolidated text published in Journal of Laws 2019 pos. 710).

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).